Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2529/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8318 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 2529/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) DHALL ENTERPRISES & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. NR. G.D. HIGH SCHOOL, SAIJPUR BOGHA, AHMEDABAD- 382345 V/S THE DY. C.I.T. CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACD5351J APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. SANKAR, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 11 -05-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 -05-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, AHMEDABAD DATED 24.08.2016 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2013- 14 AND FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN:. ITA NO. 2529 /AHD/2016 . A.Y. 2013-1 4 2 1. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS G RIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,81,252/- MADE U/S. 36(1)(VA) R.W. S. 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON VERIFICATION OF AUDIT REPORT FILED DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AUDITOR HAS REPORTED THE EMPLOYEES PF/ESIC CONTRIBUTION ARE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE LATE, THE DET AILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: SR. NO MONTH NATURE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT DUE DATE DATE OF PAYMENT 1 OCTOBER - 2012 PF 240630 20/11/2012 21/11/2012 1 APRIL - 201 2 ESIC 17194 21/05/2012 25/05/2012 2 MAY - 2012 ESIC 18266 21/06/2012 23/06/2012 3 AUGUST - 2012 ESIC 32357 21/09/2012 26/09/2012 4 SEPTEMBER - 2012 ESIC 19323 21/10/2012 22/10/2012 5 OCTOBER - 2012 ESIC 18039 21/11/2012 22/11/2012 6 NOVEMBER - 2012 ESIC 17749 21/12/2012 22/12/2012 7 JANUARY - 201 3 ESIC 17694 21/02/2013 28/02/2013 TOTAL 381252 II) AS SUCH, VIDE POINT NO. 8 OF ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 07/07/2015, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AMOU NT OF RS. 3,81,252/- SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME U/S. 2(24)(X) OF THE INCOM E TAX. ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,81,252/-. 3. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST ST ATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT TO NO AVAIL. ITA NO. 2529 /AHD/2016 . A.Y. 2013-1 4 3 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER. THIS CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSP ORT CORPORATION 366 ITR 170 WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 43B, READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 - BUSINESS DISALLOWANCE - CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS TO BE ALLOWED ON ACTUAL PAYMENT (EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION) - WHETHER WHERE AN EMPLOYER HAS NOT CREDITED SUM RE CEIVED BY IT AS EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO EMPLOYEES' ACCOUNT IN RELEVANT FUND ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA), ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED T O DEDUCTION OF SUCH AMOUNT THOUGH HE DEPOSITS SAME BEFORE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECT ION 43B I.E., PRIOR TO FILING OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) -HELD, YES - ASSESSEE STATE TRANSPOR T CORPORATION COLLECTED A SUM BEING PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTION FROM ITS EMPLOYEES - HO WEVER, IT HAD DEPOSITED LESSER SUM IN PROVIDENT FUND ACCOUNT - ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOW ED SAME UNDER SECTION 43B -HOWEVER, COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED DISALLOWANCE ON GROU ND THAT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE FILING RETURN - WHETHER SINCE ASSES SEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED SAID CONTRIBUTION IN RESPECTIVE FUND ACCOUNT ON DATE AS PRESCRIBED IN EX PLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA), DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUST AND PROPER - HELD, YES [PARA 8] [IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE] 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID DECISION, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED DETAILED AND REASONED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21- 05- 2018 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 21/05/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - ITA NO. 2529 /AHD/2016 . A.Y. 2013-1 4 4 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD